Chandveer Singh & Ors. vs State & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5219 Del

$~39

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.M.C. 3551/2011

%             Judgment delivered on: 24th October, 2011

       CHANDVEER SINGH & ORS.            ..... Petitioner
               Through : Mr. L.D. Mual, Adv.

                     versus

       STATE & ORS.                    ..... Respondent

                     Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP.
                     Mr. O.N. Rattanpal, Adv. for R2/complainant.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?               No
    2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                No
    3. Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest?                                    No


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.A. 12591/2011 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL. M.C. 3551/2011

1      Notice.

2      Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for State accepts notice on

behalf of respondent No.1/State.

 3    Mr. O.N. Rattanpal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf

of respondent No. 2/complainant.

4    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR

No. 174/2003, a case under Sections 498A/494/406/506/34

Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Rohini, Delhi

on the complaint of respondent No. 2/complainant.

5 It is further submitted that vide settlement dated

04.04.2009, the parties have amicably settled the matter

arising between them qua the aforesaid FIR for a total sum

of Rs.8 Lacs.

6 Respondent No.2/complainant is personally present in

the court. She is duly identified by Mr. O.N. Rattanpal,

Advocate. She submits that she has settled her disputes with

the petitioners on the receipt of Rs.8 Lacs as full and final

settlement and nothing remains due qua the aforesaid FIR,

and she has no objection if the instant FIR is quashed.

7 Learned APP for State submits that Government

machinery has been used and the precious time of the court

has also been consumed, therefore, heavy costs should be

imposed upon the petitioners before quashing the FIR.

8 I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for

State, and impose a costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by petitioner

No. 1 in favour of Principal, Sr. Secondary School for Blind Boys,

Sewa Kutir, B.B.M. Depot Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi within

four weeks from today. The proof of payment of costs shall be

placed on record. I refrain myself on imposing costs upon the

rest of the petitioners because of their poor financial conditions.

9 Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the

parties, statement of respondent No. 2/complainant, I quash

FIR No.174/2003, P.S. Rohini, under Sections

498A/494/406/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the all

proceedings emanating therefrom.

10 CRL. M.C. 3551/2011 is allowed and disposed of

accordingly.

11    Dasti.




                                   SURESH KAIT,J




OCTOBER 24, 2011
j